Supreme Court Quashes FIR and Charges Under Arms Act, Citing Lack of Evidence for Prohibited Purpose: “Prosecution Cannot Be Allowed to Improve Its Case as Set Out in the Charge-Sheet”

Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, charge-sheet, and all related proceedings filed against the appellant under Sections 25, 54, and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959. It held that the prosecution failed to establish the required elements of the offense under the Arms Act and the DAD notification. The Court stated:

“The prosecution cannot be allowed to improve its case as set out in the charge-sheet.”

The Court declared the proceedings an abuse of the process of law and emphasized the lack of evidence to prove that the knife’s possession was for “manufacture, sale, or test.”

Facts

• The appellant was found acting suspiciously at Pravasi Park, Delhi. Upon being searched, a buttondar knife with dimensions exceeding the general threshold under the Arms Rules, 2016, was recovered. The knife measured:
  • Blade length: 14.5 cm
  • Handle length: 17 cm
  • Width: 3 cm
• An FIR was lodged under Sections 25, 54, and 59 of the Arms Act.
• The charge-sheet concluded that the appellant was in illegal possession of the knife, purportedly in violation of the DAD notification dated October 29, 1980, which regulates knives based on their dimensions and purposes like manufacture, sale, or test.
• The appellant filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC in the Delhi High Court to quash the FIR, arguing that the possession of the knife was not for any prohibited purpose as prescribed by the DAD notification. The High Court dismissed the petition without addressing these arguments, prompting the appellant to approach the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Applicability of the DAD Notification: Whether the possession of the buttondar knife by the appellant fell within the purview of the Arms Act and the DAD notification.
2. Prima Facie Evidence: Whether the prosecution had provided sufficient evidence to establish the required purpose (manufacture, sale, or test) to sustain the criminal charges.

Petitioner’s Arguments

• The knife’s dimensions did not violate the Arms Rules or the DAD notification.
• The DAD notification explicitly limits liability to cases where possession is for “manufacture, sale, or test.” The prosecution failed to allege or provide evidence of such a purpose.
• The High Court failed to address these fundamental flaws while dismissing the quashing petition.

Respondent’s Arguments

• The possession of the knife violated the DAD notification.
• The question of whether the possession was for manufacture, sale, or test should be determined during the trial, not at the quashing stage.

Analysis of the Law

The Arms Rules, 2016, and the DAD notification impose restrictions on specific knives based on their dimensions and purpose. The notification explicitly states that knives are subject to regulation only if they are:

1. Designed for “manufacture, sale, or test.”
2. Exceed specific dimensional thresholds (e.g., blade length of 7.62 cm and breadth of 1.72 cm).

The Court found that:

• The knife exceeded the dimensions under the Arms Rules, but this alone did not make its possession an offense under the DAD notification.
• There was no allegation in the charge-sheet that the appellant possessed the knife for any prohibited purpose (e.g., sale or test).

The Court reiterated that the prosecution must present basic allegations to establish the offense’s essential ingredients. Mere possession of the knife, without evidence of a prohibited purpose, is insufficient to sustain charges under the notification.

Precedent Analysis

The Court relied on established principles:

1. Prosecution cannot improve its case beyond what is stated in the charge-sheet.
2. Criminal proceedings should not be initiated or allowed to continue if the allegations fail to establish a prima facie offense.
3. Abuse of the legal process must be prevented by quashing baseless proceedings.

Court’s Reasoning

1. The charge-sheet did not allege that the knife was possessed for manufacture, sale, or test as required under the DAD notification.
2. The notification explicitly limits liability to specific purposes of possession. General possession does not constitute an offense.
3. The High Court erred in dismissing the petition without addressing these critical issues, leading to a miscarriage of justice.

The Supreme Court observed:

“There is not even a whisper that the possession of the knife was for the purpose of sale or test. The prosecution cannot be allowed to improve its case.”

Conclusion

The Supreme Court quashed FIR No. 477 of 2022, the related charge-sheet, and all proceedings initiated against the appellant under Sections 25, 54, and 59 of the Arms Act. It declared the proceedings an abuse of the legal process, reiterating that the absence of allegations about the purpose of possession invalidated the charges.

Implications

1. Prevention of Misuse of Prosecution Powers: The judgment reinforces the requirement for clear and specific allegations to sustain criminal proceedings.
2. Protection of Individual Rights: The ruling safeguards individuals from baseless criminal charges where prosecution fails to meet the essential elements of the alleged offense.
3. Judicial Oversight: The decision underscores the judiciary’s role in ensuring that criminal cases are not pursued on vague or insufficient grounds.

Also Read – Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Interim Bail in Sharp Weapon Assault Case and states that “Custodial Interrogation Not Justified”